D&D 5E Should 5e have more classes (Poll and Discussion)?

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Which in 5e makes every subclass = class. The "fighter" is three separate classes. The Battle Master class, the Champion class and the Eldritch Knight class. They share some things in common, but they are three classes.

I'm not sure I agree, but that's an interesting and viable perspective at the very least.

 

[Minigiant]

Which in 5e makes every subclass = class. The "fighter" is three separate classes. The Battle Master class, the Champion class and the Eldritch Knight class. They share some things in common, but they are three classes.

I don't think so.

All three are fighters first. They rely on Action Surge and Second Wind and regular weapon attacks primarily. Sup die, Imp Crit, and 1/3 spells are just toppings for the base fighter experience. An EK is still stab first.

This is different for "Barbarian as a fighter Subclass" because Reckless Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Rage would take centerstage.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure I agree, but that's an interesting and viable perspective at the very least.

I look at it like this. The fighter cannot exist and function without the subclass. The Battle Master subclass cannot exist and function without the fighter. Both together are required to equal a class. Since that class would be different from the pair that equate to the Eldritch Knight class, they can't be fighters, so they are Battle Master and Eldritch Knight classes.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think so.

All three are fighters first. They rely on Action Surge and Second Wind and regular weapon attacks primarily. Sup die, Imp Crit, and 1/3 spells are just toppings for the base fighter experience. An EK is still stab first.

This is different for "Barbarian as a fighter Subclass" because Reckless Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Rage would take centerstage.

They have similarities, sure, but both class and subclass are required to succeed, and you pick your subclass too early for the "fighter" portion to really mean anything.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The fighter cannot exist and function without the subclass.

Respectfully, I have to disagree.

The fighter existed for many editions without subclasses (although technically Ranger and Paladin were termed subclasses in AD&D, but that is a different use compared to 5E).

You can play a fighter in 5E and never even choose a subclass and your PC will play fine.

 

[Maxperson]

To break it down a bit further. The fighter class only really has Second Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable as class features. Extra attack, ability increases and fighting styles are shared with other "classes." Those three "fighter" features aren't really distinctive enough to equal a class.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I look at it like this. The fighter cannot exist and function without the subclass. The Battle Master subclass cannot exist and function without the fighter. Both together are required to equal a class. Since that class would be different from the pair that equate to the Eldritch Knight class, they can't be fighters, so they are Battle Master and Eldritch Knight classes.

I see classes a little differently. "Class" is an abbreviation of "classification." Classes are therefore categories, not a platonic forms of different adventuring archetypes. Champions, battle masters and eldritch knights all fit into the category "Fighter", which we refer to as a "Class."

 

[Maxperson]

I see classes a little differently. "Class" is an abbreviation of "classification." Classes are therefore categories, not a platonic forms of different adventuring archetypes. Champions, battle masters and eldritch knights all fit into the category "Fighter", which we refer to as a "Class."

Okay, but then so do Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians. I mean, if Eldritch Knights fits under a fighting man classification, then so do those classes.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Okay, but then so do Rangers and Barbarians. I mean, if Eldritch Knights fits under a fighting man classification, then so do those classes.

A certain level of arbitrariness divides fighters, ranger, and barbarians. I'm OK with that. Not because it makes any sense from a logical perspective, but because it makes for a good game.

 

[Minigiant]

They have similarities, sure, but both class and subclass are required to succeed, and you pick your subclass too early for the "fighter" portion to really mean anything.

1) Not really. That's the point. The class contains 75-90% of a class' power.
You could totally skip subclass and it would function fine. If you really wanted it to match up with the baseline you could replace subclass with +1 to an ability score.

2) 5e classes aren't complete until level 3.